Bad Character Evidence

F-2018-147

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2018-147, Marcus Dewayne Boyd appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Shooting with Intent to Kill, and Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction of a Felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment and sentences from the trial court. One judge dissented. Marcus Dewayne Boyd was found guilty by a jury of serious crimes, including murder and several counts of shooting at people. The jury decided that he should spend life in prison for the murder, twenty years for each shooting count, and two years for the weapon possession. The judge ordered that these sentences should be served one after the other, meaning Boyd would spend a long time in prison before having a chance for parole. During the appeal, Boyd argued several points, saying that his trial was unfair. He mentioned that it was wrong for the court to allow evidence about his gang affiliation. The court saw that this evidence helped explain why the crimes happened, so they disagreed with Boyd's claim. He also said it was unfair that the prosecutor questioned a witness about her relatives who had been prosecuted. The court agreed that this questioning was okay to show potential bias and did not cause an error. Boyd claimed that the way police showed the lineup of suspects was unfair and could influence witnesses. However, the court found the lineup was appropriate and did not break any rules about how police should conduct lineups. Boyd further argued that the prosecution did not share some evidence that could have helped him in his defense, but the court decided that he did not prove this claim. Boyd also objected to how one of the witnesses, who had a prior conviction, was treated in court. The court stated that having a history of misdemeanors is generally allowed as it can show a witness's credibility. Furthermore, Boyd said he was made to wear a ankle restraint during the trial without a good reason. The court recognized that this was not justified but ultimately decided it did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. On the point of his lawyer's performance, Boyd claimed his lawyer did not defend him properly and raised many issues that could have been objected to but were not. However, the court noted that there were no errors in the trial that would change the outcome, so the attorney’s actions were acceptable. Finally, Boyd argued that the combination of all these issues made the trial unfair. The court agreed that there was only one area where there was an error, but this alone was not enough to convince them that it affected the jury's decision. In summary, the court found no reason to change the conviction or sentence, agreeing that the trial was mostly fair and that Boyd received appropriate legal representation, despite a few concerns about courtroom procedures.

Continue ReadingF-2018-147

F-2017-639

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-639, Christopher Lantz Wildman appealed his conviction for First Degree Manslaughter. In a published decision, the court decided that his conviction would be upheld. One judge dissented. Christopher Wildman was found guilty by a jury of killing someone and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was awarded credit for the time he served before the trial. Wildman argued several points in his appeal, claiming that his rights were violated during the trial. First, he said the evidence didn’t prove he wasn’t acting in self-defense, which is an important legal argument in these cases. He believed that if the evidence did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with wrongful intent, he should not have been convicted. However, the court found that there was enough evidence suggesting he did not act in self-defense. Wildman also claimed that his trial was unfair because some evidence showed bad character, and that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on how to consider that evidence. The court reviewed this point and decided that the evidence presented was not overly prejudicial, so it allowed the trial to continue without a limiting instruction. He argued prosecutorial misconduct, which means he felt the prosecutor acted inappropriately during the trial. Wildman argued that remarks made by the prosecutor affected his right to a fair trial. The court noted that comments made by the prosecutor were not serious enough to change the outcome of the trial and were in response to claims made by Wildman. Wildman believed that his attorney did not perform well and that he should have had a better defense. The court examined this claim closely. It stated that for someone to prove their lawyer was ineffective, they need to show that their lawyer's performance was very poor and that it influenced the trial's outcome. The court found that Wildman's lawyer did not make serious mistakes. Additionally, he felt that some evidence about the victim’s habits was improperly allowed into the trial. However, since he did not object to this evidence during the trial, it made it harder for him to appeal this point later. Finally, Wildman argued that all these errors combined led to an unfair trial. The court did not find any significant errors, so they upheld the conviction. In conclusion, the court affirmed Wildman's conviction and sentence, stating that the original trial was fair and proper according to the evidence and legal standards.

Continue ReadingF-2017-639

F-2017-532

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2017-532, Shane Allen Vanderpool appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder, Possession of a Firearm After Former Conviction, and Eluding a Police Officer. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions and sentences. One judge dissented. The case began when Vanderpool shot and killed Blaine Wells in an incident that was determined to be a case of mistaken identity following an encounter at an intersection in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Vanderpool did not know Wells, and the circumstances of the shooting involved a misunderstanding about the identities of the people involved. Vanderpool was later connected to the crime through evidence that included phone records and testimonies that linked him to the location of the shooting. Witnesses to the shooting were able to identify Vanderpool as the shooter, and forensic evidence further implicated him. Vanderpool was charged with First Degree Murder and other related offenses, ultimately leading to a conviction and a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder charge. During the appeal, Vanderpool raised several issues regarding the trial court's admission of evidence relating to his character and gang affiliations. He claimed that such evidence denied him a fair trial. However, the court found that the evidence was admissible as it was closely connected to the events of the shooting. Vanderpool also challenged certain photographic evidence presented at trial, arguing it was prejudicial and lacked relevance. The court, however, concluded that these photographs had significant probative value and did not substantially outweigh any potential prejudicial effect. Another argument Vanderpool made was about the unconstitutionality of a statute regarding the sentencing of noncapital murder defendants, which he felt limited his ability to present mitigating evidence during sentencing. The court held that the statute was constitutional and provided due process protections. Furthermore, Vanderpool contended that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain objections during trial. The court noted that his counsel's performance did not result in prejudice that would impact the trial's outcome; therefore, this claim was also denied. Finally, Vanderpool argued that the cumulative effect of errors during his trial denied him a fair trial. The court ruled that as they found no substantial errors, this claim also failed. In conclusion, the court affirmed Vanderpool's convictions and the sentences imposed by the trial court. The opinions aligned with the decisions made regarding the evidentiary rulings and the interpretation of the relevant statutes. One judge expressed a differing view but ultimately the majority ruled in favor of upholding the lower court's decision.

Continue ReadingF-2017-532

F-2009-614

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2009-614, John Wesley Revard appealed his conviction for Robbery With A Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify Appellant's sentence to thirty (30) years of imprisonment. One judge dissented. John Wesley Revard was found guilty by a jury for using a dangerous weapon during a robbery. The jury decided he should spend 40 years in prison, but his appeal led to a change that reduced his sentence to 30 years. Revard claimed several mistakes were made during his trial. He argued that the trial court should have allowed the jury to consider a less serious charge of robbery. The court found that there was not enough evidence to support the lesser charge, so they did not agree with that argument. He also said that the prosecutor acted improperly during the trial and that it made the trial unfair. However, the court looked at everything and concluded that while there may have been some questionable remarks, they did not harm the fairness of his trial. Revard pointed out that the court allowed evidence of other crimes that he was not being tried for, claiming it unfairly affected his case. The court agreed that some of this evidence was not relevant but believed it did not change the outcome of the trial. Additionally, Revard claimed that certain references to probation during the sentencing phase were not proper and prejudiced the jury against him. The court found that these references did affect his rights and decided that this was a significant enough mistake to change his sentence. Lastly, Revard argued that his lawyer did not perform well enough to help him during the trial. The court determined that even with these claims, he did not provide enough evidence to show that he would have won if his lawyer had done a better job. In conclusion, the court confirmed his conviction but reduced his prison term from 40 to 30 years based on the issues presented during the sentencing.

Continue ReadingF-2009-614

F 2001-171

  • Post author:
  • Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F 2001-171, Emily Dowdy appealed her conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree (DUI). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Emily Dowdy was found guilty of causing a death while driving under the influence of alcohol. Her trial took place in January 2001, and she was sentenced to 25 years in prison. After her conviction, she appealed, arguing ten different points about why her trial was unfair. First, she claimed that she should not have been tried again because of double jeopardy, which means a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice. However, the appellate court said that this was not the case here because the state did not purposefully try to get a mistrial. Second, Dowdy wanted to present a defense that she was involuntarily intoxicated, meaning she did not intend to be drunk, but the court ruled that she could not do this, which the appellate court found was a mistake. This mistake was very important and led to the decision to give her a new trial. The appellate court emphasized that everyone has the right to defend themselves and present their story in court, which Dowdy was not allowed to do. The other points raised by Dowdy, such as claims of unfair trial processes, bias from the judge, and other trial errors, were not addressed because the court believed that the preclusion of her intoxication defense was enough to warrant a new trial. In the end, the appellate court said Dowdy should have another opportunity to present her case to a jury where she could defend herself fully. The judge's decision not to allow her intoxication defense to be presented was seen as very serious and unfair, leading the court to reverse the earlier judgment and order a new trial.

Continue ReadingF 2001-171